gotowe prace licencjackie

Sam Apex
http://www.apexhsc.co.uk

When I facilitate brainstormings I break it down into a three tiered approach with prep work.

The prep work is done to ‘prime the pump’ and get people thinking in different ways about the problem at hand.

The First tier is for people to come up with ideas on their own, and document these sketches, explanations. The Second tier is a group brainstorm where all ideas are shared and additional digging is done to flesh out other possible challenges. The third is when everyone goes back, by themselves, and builds upon the first two tiers. All this information then gets collated and shared. The best ideas get picked and prototyping begins right away.

Bouncing ideas off others, collatboration, ‘design by committee’, are all very different things. However, the one thing they have in common is the individual who dreams, imagines, ‘sketches’ in whatever medium she is comfortable with, and isn’t afraid to share those visions for products or services.

Such are all beginnings…

There’s a whole parallel discussion occurring within mainstream medicine about whether the movement of ‘evidence-based medicine’ as it has evolved is overly rigid, valuing epidemiological evidence above other sorts of evidence. The randomised controlled trial sitting atop the pinnacle of EBM is very useful for some questions but other sorts of evidence are dismissed despite carrying as much scientific and epistemological authority.

To turn your legal analogy around, imagine if a prosecutor in a murder trial were to present this sort of evidence, “these statistics indicate that males aged 30-35 from Delaware with red hair are 3 times more likely to commit murder than other people, and look, the 32 year old defendant from Delaware has red hair!!” You may not believe that such logical fallacies are committed in the name of ‘evidence-based medicine’ but I can assure you they are with depressing regularity.

Ever watched a crime movie where the first thing the burglars do is cut the wires to the alarm? What if a burglar had done that at your house – start by cutting the phone wire?

My impression is that modern systems instantly detect such a break – it’s sorta like the “dead man’s clutch” on lawn mowers and, I’ve heard, motorcycles: the system only ACTS okay if it has a positive indication that the whole system’s working. (Your hand on the clutch, or a working phone connection.)

One view of such things is that a well engineered (robust) system does everything possible to anticipate predictable breakdowns.

– Meanwhile, yesterday I commented on Paul Tarini’s HuffPo article about genomics at TEDMED. I asserted that there can be *positive* unintended consequences, too – it’s just the way the universe unfolds.

Yesterday I picked up the newspaper from my driveway and tossed it on the roof of my car. It slid across (unintended) to the windshield. I forgot it.

Later I got in and noticed it on the far side. Clever bastard, I turned on the wipers, figuring it would get the paper closer. In reality, the right wiper flipped it up, like a volleyball setup, and the left wiper scooped it up and pushed it up onto the roof, with enough velocity that it slid off, falling down past my still-open door.

If I’d been a little more alert I could have reached out and grabbed it. Talk about unintended!

The universe is full of joy and surprises. Enjoy life. (And maybe ask your company about the dead-man’s alarm question!)

I’ve long heard that people want easy answers, but I’ve never seen it expressed as a fundamental drive. It makes sense now that I see it.

Next question: why can’t Democrats figure out how to harness this?